Both Candidates Focus On Coalition Roles In Iraq

WASHINGTON — Coalitions seem to be the solution of choice for both President Bush and Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry as each this week tries to show how he would clean up the mess in Iraq.

But it's doubtful either would be able to assemble the kind of meaningful, stabilizing coalition each is promising. And even if they do, there are serious questions just how much any alliance could help.

No matter how many countries join the effort or how soothing their pledges of cooperation, ``we can't fix countries,'' said Charles V. Pena, defense policy analyst at Washington's Cato Institute.

The prime example of post-war coalitions that worked is the rebuilding of Germany and Japan after World War II. There were two important differences, though, between that situation and today's: Both nations had surrendered to the Allies and reconstruction had popular support.

That's not so in Iraq, Pena said.

That is not stopping the idea of coalitions from playing a central role in American politics this week, as Bush and Kerry emphasize Iraq policy in a series of speeches and press conferences. Kerry offered more pieces of his plan in a major address Monday, and Bush will speak today at the United Nations and then meet individually with leaders of several nations and U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan.

Critics say that strong coalitions may have once made sense, but the United States' insistence on attacking Iraq without the formal blessing of the U.N. made America an international pariah. Popular support for the war in France, Germany and a number of other countries has long been negligible.

Support from other nations arguably is dwindling, with several dropping out of the coalition in recent months, and last week, Annan threw more fuel onto this fire by contending that the U.S.-led war was a violation of international law.

Bush and his backers argue there is already a meaningful coalition at work, and say what's needed is more help and some adjustments, but hardly an overhaul.

``Tony Blair, John Howard (Australia's prime minister), Eastern European countries ... that's not a meaningful coalition?'' asked Clifford May, president of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, a Washington policy institute.

Numbers indicate otherwise. The U.S. is assuming much of the cost, both financially and with soldiers' lives.

Of 1,168 military deaths in Iraq as of Monday, some 1,033 were Americans. Since the U.S. handed over sovereignty June 29, there have been 196 military deaths, all but 17 Americans. But, countered May, it's not like other countries would have contributed any special military expertise anyway.

``How much help would those other nations be able to give you? Even our military is not designed for this sort of conflict,'' he said.

Bush loyalists offer other examples of why the coalition, which now includes about 30 countries, is working.

For instance, the White House lauds NATO's pledge in June to begin an effort to train Iraqi soldiers. There are 40 NATO-backed troops now in Iraq, and after some delays -- largely involving questions from France and Belgium about security for those forces -- more personnel are expected to arrive shortly.

But said doubters, such an example shows why coalitions are useful only in selected situations.

The U.S. also cites the Madrid donor conference, where allies last fall pledged $13 billion to help rebuild Iraq. But skeptics point out that money pledged by other countries was far below the $36 billion goal.

Even those who otherwise are solid Bush loyalists point out the lopsided nature of things.

``[Let's not be] kidding ourselves about who's carrying the burden,'' said Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb. ``Big time, big time it's the United States.''

But one of the key prerequisites to forging a useful coalition, said analysts and critics, could rely on the most problematic piece of the Iraq puzzle -- an exit strategy.

``You're only going to get countries like France and Germany, and for that matter the United Nations, when the policy is redefined in keeping with their objectives,'' said Lou Cantori, professor of political science at University of Maryland-Baltimore County.

Others disputed that necessity. ``We don't have exit strategies,'' said May. ``We're still in Korea, we're still in Japan and Bosnia.''

And that's the point, said administration critics. Coalitions cannot do everything, but they are effectively keeping the peace in troubled countries, and need to do so in Iraq until it can govern itself.